please empty your brain below
I think the TfL do not want to pay for services outside Greater London.
Makes me wonder why they are going to run a TfL service all the way to Reading soon.

John | 13.12.17 - 7:33 a.m. | #

From a purely crayonista point of view I'd love to see this built, although I live nowhere near. The extension seems to make so much sense. Presumably it is impossible to totally quantify the benefits before the scheme is built. Few knew for example what a success the Overground would be.

On the cost side however, whilst I appreciate that everything, especially rail infrastructure costs a lot this scheme is essentially one viaduct and a few km of track on an existing alignment. It seems to me that now much of the price of such a scheme gets spent on lawyers and consultants etc. Isn't it true that this link could have been built for the amount already spent?

For comparison the Granada Metro (southern Spain) was recently opened at a cost of 560 million euros. The route stretches for 16 km, almost 3km of which are underground and includes 26 stations (mostly tram stops).

Lorenzo | Homepage | 13.12.17 - 7:49 a.m. | #

@John

The reason it was not done is due to escalating costs and hence the projected cost/benefit going south. Several articles over at London Reconnections describe the problem in detail.

How far outside of the M25 TfL should go would be a good debate over a pint sometime.

Jon Jones | 13.12.17 - 8:00 a.m. | #

And you didn't pop in for a cup of tea?

Kirk | 13.12.17 - 8:29 a.m. | #

Perhaps if they changed the name of the new extension to the "DUP line" and renamed the new station "Heights of Blackmail" there would be vast amounts of money thrown at the scheme.

fishislandskin | 13.12.17 - 8:33 a.m. | #

In 1996 the extension was costed at £15 million. I realize that the ‘current’ scheme includes a new train, improvements to the power supply, and probably more expensive signalling, but I fail to see how the costs can have risen to over £300 million in 20 years.

Abe | 13.12.17 - 8:56 a.m. | #

The frustrating thing about this extension is that it is a victim of the accident of history that placed Watford along with many other towns in the urban sprawl around London outside of the GLC area 50 years ago. It makes no sense to have a demarcation line such as the Greater London boundary as the cut off for where TfL’s interests stop because transport by its very nature is fluid. Whilst I understand why the mayor and GLA are reluctant to spend money on a scheme that they would perceive as being of greater benefit to people that cannot vote for them, there has to be a way of resolving the obstacles that have held this project up? Perhaps TfL require a much wider sphere of influence like their predecessor the LPTB whose area of operations whilst limited in a railway sense saw them operating bus services from Crawley to Hitchin and Tilbury to High Wycombe?

Phil | 13.12.17 - 9:02 a.m. | #

Ideal route for a heritage line?

Adrian | 13.12.17 - 10:10 a.m. | #

The solution is simple. Department for Transport stumps up the required cash. If it's that important to do, then it's a no brainer.

Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 13.12.17 - 10:21 a.m. | #

I'm not so sure that the Greater London border is as decisive on this as is often claimed.

Even a scheme wholly within London can only be built if somebody pays for it. If the "money is not there" and the relevant politicians refuse to find it, then any scheme just will not happen.

Malcolm Story | 13.12.17 - 11:27 a.m. | #

Someone should pull their finger out and get on with it. You would have a great railway connection with this development for the whole of West Watford and Croxley Green. we would still be living in the dark ages if someone hadn't got on with developing the light bulb even though it was cheaper to use candles.

Tones | 13.12.17 - 11:48 a.m. | #

@Abe

In 1996 the Watford West line was still an operational electric railway (albeit with its limited services about to be removed). I suspect that undoing 20 years of decay – or in other words rebuilding the line from scratch and constructing a new power supply system – is part of the difference.

At least, the difference between the 1996 cost and the 2011 cost. I have no idea how the cost has trebled in the 6 years following.

Geoff | 13.12.17 - 12:08 p.m. | #

@Jon Jones: The MLX is *inside* M25 for Pete's sake.

Patrickov | 13.12.17 - 12:14 p.m. | #

The cost of nearly all rail projects has rocketed in the last few years and I think we are getting used to hearing about cost overruns. Someone is not allowing for the high cost of Health and Safety issues, the many additions to make everything fully accessible and of course all the 'little extras' that everyone wants. Lets get a grip on costs.

MikeH | 13.12.17 - 1:38 p.m. | #

There has also been that once finished, Chilton Railways cold run a service from Aylesbury via Amersham & Rickmansworth to Watford Junction. Following their successful Oxford via Bicester link, perhaps they could be persuaded by Watford Council to take over control of the route, but a cut-down version, without the new intermediate stations. TFL could then put in the extra stations, at much reduced costs to everyone. Worth a punt?

Doug Robinson | 13.12.17 - 2:35 p.m. | #

Perhaps Mayor Khan spotted on the OSI map that you can be on a Metropolitan train, get off at Northwick Park, reach Kenton after a four-minute walk and be at Watford Junction via his Overground at a capital cost of £0.

Gordon | 13.12.17 - 3:25 p.m. | #

Croxley Green to Watford Junction, via Northwick Park and Kenton?

So around 20 minutes from Croxley Green to Northwick Park. 4 minutes to walk to Kenton, you say. Another 20 minutes back to Watford Junction. So about 45 minutes to travel about 3 miles. You could walk it in much the same time.

Or indeed take the Met to Watford and then a local bus. All done in about 20 minutes, if the connections work. Or just one bus, in about 15 minutes.

Assuming it is Watford Junction you want to reach, and not the hospital or the football stadium or the prospective new houses, or the "trade city", or something else in between.

From central London, you can of course choose which line to take to end up either west or east of Watford town centre.

It still beggars belief that relaying a few kilometres of track on an existing alignment can cost quite so much.

Andrew | 13.12.17 - 6:01 p.m. | #

There is no Benefit to Cost ratio. Well, inasmuch as the probable income will be less than the day-to-day running expenses if one counts the likely passengers, as the fares zonal system will add insignificant amounts to traveller's ticket prices.
The benefits to Croxley will be minimal (I might occasionally use it for Northbound West Coast travel), but the detriments of extra points and a noisy viaduct will not be appreciated.
The only possible transient benefit is if the Euston throat gets blocked, accident or HS2 works: Hemel Hempstead is a painful Bus Displacement terminus.

NickK | 13.12.17 - 7:36 p.m. | #

Pfft, if you want a "Crayonista" approach it's the South Hertfordshire light rail or nothing. From Rickmansworth and Moor Park, via the Watford Branch, the St Albans Abbey branch line, a new/reclaimed route from St Albans to Hertford via Hatfield and Welwyn, onto the Hertford East Branch to terminate at Broxbourne. Sorted. Some tunnels required.

Al__S | 13.12.17 - 8:24 p.m. | #

@ Nick K - well there certainly isn't a sensible b/c ratio now given costs have escalated so much. Given the general downward pressure on spending I am astonished the Treasury have not simply demanded an end to the scheme. Presumably politics are in the lead at the moment and the Tories are waiting to hang the "London Mayor cancels Watford Rail link" garland round Mr Khan's neck on 31 December 2018.

PC | 13.12.17 - 8:30 p.m. | #

The necessary Transport and Works Act Order powers expire in August 2018.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 13.12.17 - 8:37 p.m. | #

@Abe
"I realize that the ‘current’ scheme includes a new train,"..........

which is a sunk cost as it has already been built and is in service.

timbo again | 13.12.17 - 8:57 p.m. | #

"Route from St Albans to Hertford via Hatfield and Welwyn". That is going to come as a surprise to the people living on the estates already built over the Alban Way. I dread to think how much it might cost to remove them. If not, where might a new route go? (Can you make pie in the sky with crayons?)

Andrew | 13.12.17 - 10:01 p.m. | #

Not sure why it was closed the the first place if this would then require expensive & difficult reopening 20 years later? Would have been cheaper to keep it ticking over with minimal maintenance & services over the intervening years.

Adrian | 14.12.17 - 9:50 a.m. | #

This isn't getting built. The powers elapse next August. A tremendous shame.

Mark | 14.12.17 - 10:11 a.m. | #

@Adrian, the line was cut for the construction of the new raised dual carriageway Ascot Road: the original canal bridge & terminus station are at the wrong elevation to have been linked. I remember using the line in the daytime of Feb '89 and the guard+driver were astonished to see me alight with my daughter at West Watford, not interested in taking a fare. I don't think it was kept running long after that. However, the complete trackbed is intact, with a brand new overbridge behind the hospital.

NickK | 14.12.17 - 8:05 p.m. | #

Update from London Reconnections: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/the-metropolitan-line-extension-deadline-day/

diamond geezer | Homepage | 31.12.17 - 1:22 p.m. | #

Dead dead deaddity dead :(
Perhaps...

diamond geezer | Homepage | 25.01.18 - 1:30 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy